Imagine scientific knowledge in 1000 years, would it correspond or not
to the following verse, "All things came into being through Him, and
apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." John
1:3.

I don't think there can be a situation in which revelation affects
science. The empirical testing of models seems independent of
metaphysical and religious commitments. A subjective idealist like
Berkeley, a strict materialist or a realist (holding to the ultimate
existence of both mind/spirit and matter) will have to check the same
way, as will Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Moslem or rejector of all
religion. In the prescientific era, metaphysical commitments gave rise
to types of explanation: the perfection of the heavens and of circular
motion gave rise to a theory of orbits using cycles, epicycles and
deferents, along with the unmoved mover transferring movement to the
beings moving the planets. The geocentric universe has a place in both
metaphysics and scripture. But that was challenged by Aristarchus in
antiquity, and by Copernicus, before Kepler put orbits on a scientific
basis using Tycho's observations. Faith conflicts with scientism, but
not with science--unless one is YEC, flat-earther, anti-Copernican, etc.
on a quasi-literal interpretation.

This seems to be a rather lopsided type of integration of reason
and faith. Science gets to trump faith at every turn. On the other
hand, can any of you really cite an example where faith and revelation
affected science? (not the metaphysical meaning of science)